Gay parenting

[Value Collector]

I've said SO MANY times that this issue must be judged on a "all else being equal" basis. So yes, good, loving biological parents ARE the gold standard imo, and no matter how well gay parents treat their children there is still a missing biological link and missing male/female role models that heterosexual children need for a balanced upbringing.



The fact that the film was directed by a Gayby indicates to me that it is more a "promotion" than information/discussion.

Saying "all else being equal" is not really good enough, because in the real world, there is such a diverse spectrum of parents, it makes comparison impossible.

Because let's say on average, gay parents are equal in every other aspect to heterosexual parents, that would mean that top 50% of gay parents are better parents than the bottom 50% of hetero parents, any rules that caused the bottom 50% of parents to be favoured over the top 50% of same sex parents would be silly.

If it could be proven that on average people of African decent were 10% less intelligent than people of European decent, it in no way gives you any information that lets you judge people, you still need to judge each person individually, because the average has such wide variation that the top 10% of Africans would still be more intelligent than over 80% of whites, any rule that sort to hold them back and promote whites would be wrong.

 

[Value Collector]

Let's say, all else being equal, the average Australian prefers a white doctor to treat them, especially the little old ladies getting hip surgery.

Should medical universities have some rule that states when filling spots, all else being equal, the Asian should be rejected in favour of the white kid?

Or

let's say that Asians have a higher success rate than White Australians at completing their medical degrees, should the university reject white kids, all else being equal?

 

[SirRumpole]

What you said in your previous two posts is gobbledygook I'm afraid.

You seem to think that I want to throw gay parents in gaol or send them to Mannus Island, whereas AS I SAID BEFORE, society has no obligation to promote or condone deficiencies in child rearing whether it be caused by single mothers having children for the money or gay parents deliberately depriving a child of a mother or father.

Both the above are sub optimal situations for the child and although they obviously happen, there is no reason why people like me and others should not point out their deficiencies for the sake of being politically correct.

 

[sydboy007]

What you said in your previous two posts is gobbledygook I'm afraid.

You seem to think that I want to throw gay parents in gaol or send them to Mannus Island, whereas AS I SAID BEFORE, society has no obligation to promote or condone deficiencies in child rearing whether it be caused by single mothers having children for the money or gay parents deliberately depriving a child of a mother or father.

Both the above are sub optimal situations for the child and although they obviously happen, there is no reason why people like me and others should not point out their deficiencies for the sake of being politically correct.

But the deficiencies you point out have not been proven. They're your belief. Show some evidence that child welfare is at risk from being raised by same sex parents and then you start to have some validity to your argument.

The fact there's many happy well adjusted children raised by same sex parents is reasonable proof that there is no across the board harm to children.

 

[SirRumpole]

But the deficiencies you point out have not been proven. They're your belief. Show some evidence that child welfare is at risk from being raised by same sex parents and then you start to have some validity to your argument.

The fact there's many happy well adjusted children raised by same sex parents is reasonable proof that there is no across the board harm to children.

What do we mean by "children" ? Up to a certain age children don't know whether they are well off or not. I prefer to listen to them after they become adults and can be more objective, and more are coming out and saying that being raised by gay parents is not such a good deal.

 

[SirRumpole]

Saying "all else being equal" is not really good enough, because in the real world, there is such a diverse spectrum of parents, it makes comparison impossible.

I've heard some people say that if a child was abused by a drunken father in a heterosexual family, then gay parents would be better than that, but that argument is fallacious if the gay parents were also drunken abusers.

Obviously a non abusive heterosexual parents would also be better than an abusive gay couple.

That's what I mean by comparing like with like.

 

[Value Collector]

I've heard some people say that if a child was abused by a drunken father in a heterosexual family, then gay parents would be better than that, but that argument is fallacious if the gay parents were also drunken abusers.

Obviously a non abusive heterosexual parents would also be better than an abusive gay couple.

That's what I mean by comparing like with like.

The point of a comment like that is to show that it's not the sexuality that matters, on the spectrum of things that make good parents, sexuality is not a defining trait.

So as I said, have a system that uses sexuality as an input into what makes a good parent is going to give flawed results.

People who think gays a lessor parents will be unfairly thinking some bad things about great parents, and giving in due respect to some others that are not as good.

My whole point is you have to take each case on its own merit, you can't just make decisions on sexuality any more than you can on race.

 

[Value Collector]

What you said in your previous two posts is gobbledygook I'm afraid.

You seem to think that I want to throw gay parents in gaol or send them to Mannus Island, whereas AS I SAID BEFORE, society has no obligation to promote or condone deficiencies in child rearing whether it be caused by single mothers having children for the money or gay parents deliberately depriving a child of a mother or father.

Both the above are sub optimal situations for the child and although they obviously happen, there is no reason why people like me and others should not point out their deficiencies for the sake of being politically correct.

You have said preference for custody etc should be given based on sexuality, how is this different to saying preference for medical school should be given based on race.

I mean if it could be shown that Asians on average complete the degrees at higher rates that whites, is it ok to reject whites from the university spots, all else being equal?

Though as sydboy pointed out, you still haven't showed your hypothesis to be true yet.

 

[SirRumpole]

The point of a comment like that is to show that it's not the sexuality that matters, on the spectrum of things that make good parents, sexuality is not a defining trait.

So as I said, have a system that uses sexuality as an input into what makes a good parent is going to give flawed results.

No, I think you have made a logical error here.

You say there is a "spectrum" , but you want to disregard part of that spectrum, ie the parents sexuality compared to that of the child's.

I think it's entirely relevant to consider that the difference in the parent's sexuality compared to the child's could contribute to feelings of confusion by the child e.g. "why am I not like my parents ? I'm a girl and I like boys, my parents are girls and they don't like boys, what's wrong with me ?".

Therefore to disregard this imbalance and say it makes no difference to the child's upbringing is dishonest.

 

[SirRumpole]

Though as sydboy pointed out, you still haven't showed your hypothesis to be true yet.

My "hypothesis" is based partly on the views of people who have been raised by gay parents, some of whom have gone to court and given evidence that they believe gay parenting is detrimental to children.

 

[Value Collector]

No, I think you have made a logical error here.

You say there is a "spectrum" , but you want to disregard part of that spectrum, ie the parents sexuality compared to that of the child's.

I think it's entirely relevant to consider that the difference in the parent's sexuality compared to the child's could contribute to feelings of confusion by the child e.g. "why am I not like my parents ? I'm a girl and I like boys, my parents are girls and they don't like boys, what's wrong with me ?".

Therefore to disregard this imbalance and say it makes no difference to the child's upbringing is dishonest.

You can easily raise a child with the concept that different sexualities exist, and let them form their own preferences.

My "hypothesis" is based partly on the views of people who have been raised by gay parents, some of whom have gone to court and given evidence that they believe gay parenting is detrimental to children.

Yeah, you give more weight to the opinions of people who agree with your pre existing hypothesis, that's not evidence that's confirmation bias

 

[SirRumpole]

Yeah, you give more weight to the opinions of people who agree with your pre existing hypothesis, that's not evidence that's confirmation bias

Great statement coming from you.

You seem willing to impose on others something you would not want for yourself, but everyone else is who doesn't agree with you is biased not you.

 

[Value Collector]

Great statement coming from you.

You seem willing to impose on others something you would not want for yourself

What do you mean by that?

-----
You cling to statements made by a children of gay parents that are critical of gay parenting, however if those same people came out with positive statements about gay parenting you would ignore them, and you ignore the many other positive testamonials.

 

[SirRumpole]

What do you mean by that?

-----
You cling to statements made by a children of gay parents that are critical of gay parenting, however if those same people came out with positive statements about gay parenting you would ignore them, and you ignore the many other positive testamonials.

You said you would not swap your natural parents for a gay couple, and yet you don't mind other people going through something you didn't experience yourself.

As for ignoring positive testimonials, I haven't seen many of those, from adults at least.

So what would you say to those who have actually been through the experience, have a good relationship with their gay "parents", but wouldn't want others to go through that ?

 

[Value Collector]

You said you would not swap your natural parents for a gay couple, and yet you don't mind other people going through something you didn't experience yourself.

As for ignoring positive testimonials, I haven't seen many of those, from adults at least.

So what would you say to those who have actually been through the experience, have a good relationship with their gay "parents", but wouldn't want others to go through that ?

I said I wouldn't swap my parents for anyone, I also said the majority of people raised by gays would feel the same way.

have you looked for positive testimonials? Padt of sound reasoning is trying to prove your own hypothesis wrong.

 

[SirRumpole]

have you looked for positive testimonials? Padt of sound reasoning is trying to prove your own hypothesis wrong.

You should try it sometime yourself.

And you didn't answer my last question.

 

[SirRumpole]

II also said the majority of people raised by gays would feel the same way.

Evidence please.

 

[Value Collector]

You should try it sometime yourself.

And you didn't answer my last question.

I constantly hang question marks on my own beliefs, disproving my own hypothesis is one of the most important parts of my scepticism.

I would probably ask them what exactly about there experience did they not like, and then try to find out if this was a wide spread issue or if it was something that the majority of people in that situation found difficult.

 

[Value Collector]

rum pole, here is a short video explaining the importance of hanging a question mark on your own beliefs, I think if you can understand the idea behind the video, it will help you in many areas, especially your investing, it will show help you avoid confirmation bias.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo[/video]

 

[Atari rose]

Well here we are debating this topic again.

The baggage that the parents bring to me is what is probably the greatest worry for this particular topic. Sure everyone is different, but the baggage brought by memories through parents life goes to define them and gets passed on to the children weather they like it or not.

But first the Children well what can we say;

Because THE CHILDREN. A lot of people are completely emotional when it involves the possibility of anything happening to their or any child. They're willing to trudge through awful jobs and awful lives for their children. They're willing to make up the most artful of lies and psychic defenses to protect their children.

But the "child" is also symbolic of some weird notion of "purity" that is descended from god knows when. The possibility of a different future better than the present and all that ****. Despite children in reality being the most clever and the most vicious of tyrants while being unfathomably stupid at the same time. But when people say "defend the children", really they mean "defend this platonic embodiment of 'purity' from the 'unpure' forces of the world."

Humanity is driven by irrational and crazy psychic forces that utilize rational means.

So I do not agree that the children should have any say in the matter by both sides of this argument.

The Gay rights activists bring in Children into the debate itself is enough to make most people tune out why? because where are we getting these children from? Cannot give birth out or your ass.

You would have to assume they already had parents or at least one parent. So therefore one or both are not biological parents. The gay community then tend to tell the world that they are better at raising these children or are giving these children a better life or at least on par with the nuclear family!!!Than what!!? Firstly if the children would not would have been brought into the world other than a sperm donor or surrogate mother (which brings in the baggage) ? so how is that remotely relevant to any argument. Secondly adopting a child from a 3rd world country? Again false positive being drawn by the gay community. Children of the state? have been since the dawn of time, sure children do it tough some tougher than others but as a reason to by the Gay community that they are better parents?

There is no argument there gay people by rights should not and cannot lay claim to this "fact" that they adhere too.

Neither could this argument be used for the straight community. The children should not be brought into the argument.